SNP to be removed from office as May imposes direct rule on Scotland

The United Kingdom has been plunged into a constitutional crisis after Prime Minister Theresa May announced that the SNP was to be removed from power at Holyrood.

In a shock move, Mrs May declared an emergency debate would be held next week in the UK parliament with a view to revoking the Scotland Act and imposing direct rule over Scotland.

The news follows a stand-off between Edinburgh and London after First Minister Nicola Sturgeon held an independence referendum against the wishes of the UK Government. The referendum, held after the UK dramatically ended negotiations with the European Union thus ending hopes of any deal, resulted in a majority of Scots voting Yes.

Turnout was less than 60% however after some local authorities refused to allow premises to be used in the ballot. The authorities, including Aberdeen and Inverclyde, are controlled by pro-Union parties. Sporadic outbreaks of violence marred the ballot as members of extreme right wing organisations, many chanting “Rule Brittania”, attacked members of the public outside polling stations.

Today’s news of direct rule prompted flash protests across Scotland with at least ten thousand people gathering in George Square, Glasgow. Thousands more demonstrated in Edinburgh with smaller protests in Inverness and Dundee.

Anger has been growing following the surprise arrests last week of key Yes campaigners who have been acused of promoting the illegal referendum. Scottish Independence Convention convenors Elaine C. Smith and Pat Kane are being held at an undisclosed location in central London. Journalist Lesley Riddoch and former Editor of The Sunday Herald, Richard Walker, were released but had their passports confiscated and have been forbidden from talking to the media.

Key alternative media outlets have been seized by the UK authorities. Wings Over Scotland, Newsnet and Bella Caledonia are among several that were closed down immediately after the disputed referendum. The pro-Independence newspaper The National has been removed from the shelves of several major retailers.

The situation hes been described as serious by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon who repeated her call from last week for the UK Government to recognise the mandate handed to the SNP leader by the Scottish parliament and enter into talks. In March 2017 a majority of Holyrood MSPs voted to request a Section 30 order from Westminster which would have granted the Scottish Government the legal power to hold a referendum.

The First Minister said: “Our manifesto for the 2016 Holyrood elections specifically stated that any attempt to take Scotland out of the EU against our will would trigger a second independence referendum. This was endorsed by the Scottish Parliament in March 2017.

“Despite this, the Scottish Government has compromised and argued we would accept a loss of EU membership if we could safeguard membership of the EU Single Market. This is now gone and with it the likelihood of any deal with our European neighbours.

“Had we not acted and held a second referendum, Scotland faced the loss of a hundred thousand jobs and billions in trade. I had, and whilst I remain First Minister still have, an obligation to serve the people of Scotland.

“I urge Theresa May to reconsider this threat and to enter into talks with the Scottish Government.”

If, as now seems likely, Theresa May follows through with her threat of direct rule, it will at a stroke end twenty years of devolved elected government in Scotland. Sources close to Downing Street are briefing that the Prime Minister intends to hold snap Scottish elections with a view to installing a so-called ‘Lawful Government’.

Until then it is expected that Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar will be appointed de-facto First Minister and Deputy First Minister until a new administration can be formed.

It is also expected that any new Scotland Act will make it illegal for any party to campaign on an independence referendum platform. Leaders of the SNP and Scottish Greens face imprisonment if they campaign for, or are seen to promote, the idea of another independence referendum.

Speaking to the BBC tonight, the Secretary of State for Scotland said: “The SNP administration acted beyond the scope of its powers by holding an illegal referendum. We had a referendum in 2014 and Scotland said no.

“We cannot have maverick nationalists imposing their will on the silent majority. The United Kingdom Government has acted to restore both the rule of law and faith in our democracy.

Mundell added: “It is imperative we do not allow such reckless behaviour to occur again. That is why future elections for Holyrood will ensure parties stand on a platform of ‘policies for the majority’ and not ‘separatism for the minority’.”

The European Union has urged both sides to come together and resolve the issue through negotiation. Speaking tonight however, EC President Jean-Claude Juncker insisted the commission could not intervene unless requested to do so by the member state.

[This is a satirical news article. It has taken events in Catalonia and imagined them to be happening in Scotland. Shocking isn’t it?]

If you enjoyed reading this article please feel free to make a small donation.

I think that we can be almost certain of one thing – the State Overlords are watching unfolding events in Catalonia very closely with a view to seeing exactly what they can get away with in Scotland. I agree the above may not be a million miles of the mark.

Well you would hope Westminster would remember the thirty years of the troubles and everything that happened with a country that they had a short sea border with. Now, they surely wouldn’t want to start the same with a country they share a 70 mile land border with, including having hundreds of thousands ex-pats within that border.

As for any “de-facto” First / Deputy, Minster positions being forced upon Scotland from two minority parties, I suspect it would be a very short lived appointments. I can’t see Scots ever forgetting or forgiving anyone or their parties from holding such positions.

Agree so heartly with what u have said there’s no way Scotland would put up with anything like that if it was tryed I’m sure in fact idiots pray the English government wouldn’t want to fight with us as we aren’t Catalonia we would fight and never give up

Unfortunately, given the strength of Uber Unionism in Scotland much as I’d love this to be true I think there’s probably nothing the British Government could do that would alienate that section of the Scottish population.

Chilling, absolutely chilling, but I would say the main difference is that Scotland entered into a union with( many would say unwillingly) England and Scotland has the inaliable right to leave that union!

That’s true constitutionally but ask most ordinary English adults and they don’t see it that way. Even educated English friends of mine feel as though they also ought to have a say in whether the Union ends or not. Crazy, I think, then ask should I need to have their approval to leave any club we became members of – then they begin to think. Nevertheless, they still feel hurt, as if they personally are being rejected. The same mindset probably applies to Westminster MPs and the Government and they are the ones who currently hold power and don’t need to think.

An imaginative piece no doubt but it lacks any connection with reality.

Any unofficial referendum by Holyrood would likely be lost or turn into a farce of low turnout. Sturgeon has already ruled it out. There are no aggressive legions of pro-EU Scots who will dramatically rally to the colours if “No Deal ” happens. No one believes in Project Fear any more. I work in an industry ( oil and gas) which has just lost 120,000 jobs in two years. Nobody even noticed…..

The really important thing to recognise in the Catalan crisis is that the ” rights of European citizens” mean precisely nothing.

I assumed Eire would have been on the Catalans side, as a smaller nation trying to free itself from a larger one, just as Eire did 100 years ago.But no! Eire is on the side of Spain! Why? Spain states it is one indivisible state. The penny drops. Eire contends that Northern Ireland remains part of their one indivisible state.

Everyone then is taking the Catalan Crisis and interpreting events there expediently i.e. how it best suits their own interests.

Not so odd then that the BBC and the UK Govt backs fascist Spain now, as it suits them in the face of a possible Indyref2! Yes, they will be looking to see just how easy it will be for them to shut down Scots freedom if they adopt Franco’s modus operandi.

Odd the BBC & MSM studiously avoid mentioning Rhodesia declaring UDI from the UK. It was successful up to a point. Expediency again. It all comes down to expediency.

It’s amazing how quiet British nationalist alleged ‘socialists’ have become over Catalonia. Even anti-Catalonian. They use the same lexicon against Catalonia as they used against Caledonia in 2014, e.g. secessionists, separatists, unconstitutional, minority, regional etc. etc.

In the Spanish Civil War, socialists were on the side of democracy against Franco. In the possible Second Spanish Civil War, the inheritors of so called British socialism have turned their coats to side with Franco’s inheritors.

Expediency. It begins and ends with political expediency.

But if, as Spain’s fascists contend and there is a silent minority in favour of staying part of Spain, then why did they not just allow the Catalonian Referendum to go ahead?

Contrary to UK MSM, referendums are actually allowed under Spain’s Constitution. One was held in 1986 in Spain on whether it should remain in NATO.

Franco’s Generals returned to barracks on his death but they did attempt a coup against democracy in 1981.

In 2004 when Madrid suffered a Daesh terrorist attack, Rajoy kept insisting the Basques were responsible (to help him in political elections at the time), even though the Basques group ETA, immediately denied any involvement. It was only when international news outlets confirmed days later that it was not ETA that Rajoy had to change his story. So he is well used to political shenanigans.

Rajoy has repeatedly faced charges of slush funds and is embroiled in persistent shady deals one of which led to a Spanish City declaring him a ‘persona non grata’ for extending an alleged pollutant plastics factory for another 60 years.

Of course you will read or hear nothing of the very shady Rajoy in the BBC or other right wing or nationalist UK media outlets ..

First off, where is Eire? The country is the Republic of Ireland. Secondly, the RoI gave up its claim on NI as part of the Good Friday agreement, instead replacing it with a declaration of intent to unite subject to both NI and RoI agreeing.

Agree entirely, the debate is not helped by obscurantist finger pointing. I’d put the Irish governments position down to a combination of not wanting to be out of step,with the prevailing orthodoxy within the EU: particularly when the UK has apparently jumped ship and also the innate conservatism of Fine Gael.

You don’t know a lot about The Republic of Ireland, as it is known in English language, then Ewan? See all current Republic stamps clearly marked ‘Eire’ (as it is know in its native Irish Gaelic language).
So you won’t know where Deutschland, Belgique, or Svenska are either?

A referendum called by Holyrood could not be overuled by Westminster though technically they could challenge this in the courts. That was the purpose of the section 30 order agreed by Alex Salmond and David Cameron.
Scotlands constitutional position is quite clear. We are one of only two signatories ro the original Treaty of Union. That does literally make Scotland an equal parter in the union. David Cameron agreed this even if subsequent actions by Westminster do not live up to this fact, it none the less remains a fact.

While it may be intereting to extrapolate events in Catalonia to Scotland, it is far more sensible in my view ro point out exactly why this CANNOT happen in Scotland.

I am afraid, Ayrshirelass, that you are now “moving into the realms of fantasy” as Captain Mainawaring would say.

Under the devolution settlement, constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster. There is no way to get over the legal challenge which would be levelled at a rogue poll. If such a referendum were held the Unionists would probably boycott it. If the Unionists decided to contest it, YES would lose and be finished for our lifetime. The Scottish people do not want a referendum pre-Brexit. That was abundantly clear from GE 2017, when in an election fought on Indyref2, Unionists beat the SNP by nearly two to one in votes( which are, incidentally, what win referenda)

I am afraid that your understanding of the Treaty of Union is completely flawed. The 1707 Treaty created one new country, the United Kingdom. Under international law, Scotland and England have no existence. Scotland is not and never could be an “equal partner” in the Union. If Scotland was an “equal partner” we would be living in a Confederation.

Like you, I want to END the Treaty of Union, and restore full Scottish sovereignty. Could I use the slogan ” take back control”. But this must be achieved in a transparent and legal fashion.

There is literally no reason why Westminster cannot repeal the Scotland Acts and restore the old Union arrangement of pre 1997. As the scholar AV Dicey ( I think) once quipped, “The English parliament can ban smoking in the Paris underground”. But there are political, cultural, and moral as well as legal realities. We all know that Scotland is a “nation”. We Scots are different and the last four UK prime ministers have accepted that we can become independent if we clearly so wish. To abolish Holyrood means the end of the UK. That is why it is not happening.

Unlike Peter Bell, I find that the cases of Scotland and Catalonia are very similar. Powerful successionist “nations” are intent on breaking up major EU member states. The EU will always support the maintenance of central authority. Juncker has been totally clear about it.
That’s why it makes me sick to see our leader hugging him.

The only issue which arises for devolution from Brexit is how much more powerful will Holyrood become? What we are hearing from the SNP is grievance-driven narcissism.

“To abolish Holyrood means the end of the UK. That is why it is not happening.”

As someone else remarked, they couldn’t be that stupid

MY thought is: they would take that as a challenge and go a few levels deeper in stupidity

Reasons for not abolishing Holyrood

1. They would be immediately to blame for everything that went wrong in Scotland
2. The 13 Scottish Tory MPs would be tempted to join the SNP then propose a motion of no confidence. It is even possible Ruth Davidosn would form an independent Scottish Tory party and split the Tory votes in all constituencies – Bit I would not hold myy breath
3. A substantial proportion of Unionists would change to supporting independence
4. The lives of English setters in Scotland and Scots in England would be at risk. Some of these would be donors to the Tory party and that would not be acceptable.
5. Labour might suddenly support independence. Again I would keep breathing.
6. In the case of civil unrest there are not enough troops to subjugate the whole of Scotland

Reasons to Abolish Holyrood.

1. Unbridled westminster rule
2. err…. Without moving into the realms of fantasy that’s it

“…I am afraid that your understanding of the Treaty of Union is completely flawed. The 1707 Treaty created one new country, the United Kingdom. Under international law, Scotland and England have no existence. Scotland is not and never could be an “equal partner” in the Union. If Scotland was an “equal partner” we would be living in a Confederation…”

The Treaty actually created one new political union to reflect the earlier Union of the Crowns. The flaw in your own argument is that the English parliament has continued at Westminster (as almost every English person believes inherently) and the Scottish parliament was dissolved. The mistake for the Scots was in not forcing the English to concede a new British parliament well away from London, e.g example, in the North of England, both nearer to Scotland and away from the pernicious influence of the Crown.

As for living in a confederation, yes, that would be the interpretation I would put on it too, if Scotland and England had been deemed to be equal partners. The Scottish jurists and politicians hoped that this would be the case, although, based on past experience of Perfidious Albion they suspected not, and this suspicion was undoubtedly the reason for many of the guarantees which are incorporated into the Treaty and subsequent Act (many of which have been ruthlessly corrupted, but some of which have survived endless predation); their English counterparts knew full well that this was a hostile takeover of another sovereign state and could hardly believe their luck in that they would not have to go to war to achieve same. Scotland was, and continues to be, despite all appearances to the contrary (participating enthusiastically in the Empire, for example; attaining high office in London as Scots on the Make; and the Unionist parties supporting blindly all legislation regardless of its effect on their own country and countrymen and women and children) a domestic colony of England, and devolution has done nothing to change that fact.

The UK (the clue is in the name )
Is not one Country
It’s two kingdoms in a Treaty agreement.
This is the reason that there’s separate law, education and Churches.
There is no such thing as UK law,qualifications or Church.
And the precedent for ending the Treaty has already been set in 2014.
Westminster it’s self lodged a description of the UK (as all new members do) with UN as
Two Kingdoms, a Province and a Principality.
The Treaty of Lisbon did not make Europe one country, just a collection of Nations in a Treaty agreement to work in one Parliament, a Treaty which any members can decide to leave.
The age of the Treaty changes nothing.
And Dicey himself warned of torches and pitchforks, warning of the power of the people but was speaking of Westminster Parliamentary Sovereignty AKA the Crown in Parliament.

The Scottish Crown is no in that Parliament,the Scottish Crown has never been in that Parliament because it’s the People in Scotland who are Sovereign.
The only thing that Scotland has in Westminster is a Treaty agreement.
Keeping the Treaty arrangements or not doesn’t change the fact that it is only a Treaty and Treaty’s don’t make countries
That’s Constutions and the UK doesn’t have one….. ever wondered why?

My consistent position is that the Scottish people are indeed sovereign within the Union. I cannot quote any law to confirm this but it is now solid constitutional convention that the Scots have a right to independence if they vote accordingly. Pre-devolution, the form this was to take was by electing a majority of nationalist Scottish MPs to Westminster. After devolution, the way is to elect a majority of separatist MSPs on an independence manifesto. This happened in 2011 and a referendum ACTUALLY resulted. This happened again on a much weaker mandate in 2016 and Theresa said “Not Yet”. Madrid, note, has never come close to saying “Not Yet” to Catalonia.

If Scotland has the right to exit the Union then it is sovereign within the Union. That’s my reasoning.

There is no whiff of evidence that the 1707 “suspended ” the Scottish Parliament. The parliament that was established after 1997 is not in and of itself sovereign. It is the creature of the Scotland Act. I loved it when Winnie said that the 1707 Parliament was reconvened when Holyrood first met but sadly, it was not true.

IF the UK government had delivered fulliy on its promises then perhaps you may have a point.
As it was they reneged on them quite gleefully starting the very next day , followed by the voting doen of all the SNP amendments to the Scotland Bill. The very SNP who had just won 95 percent of Westminster seats in Scotland, itself sufficient to delcare independence in the view of the UK constitution.

Well, the SNP didn’t have the brass to declare independence and lost a third of those seats when they wouldn’t stop banging on about a second referendum. The Scottish people have spoken, loud and clear. And, you know, judging by her conference speech, I think Nicola has finally heard them. On with the day job!

It’s certainly true that the SNP MPs elected in 2015 betrayed the trust of the Scottish people, getting nothing done while gorging on expenses. Probably why so many of them were given the boot in June.

It wasn’t the SNP who kept banging on about Independence, It was the penal wart AKA Wee wullie Rennie, The Tank commander Rooth the mooth,, Kezia Dugdale. and the Unionist press, “EXPRESS” Record, Mail , Telegraph

I think you are being overconfident. The Scottish people do not want a pre-Brexit referendum and that is how the Tories made such progress. I firmly believe that Scotland will be independent in my lifetime.

Better Together polling before the 2014 referendum showed that 70% of the Scots would vote for independence if they were convinced of the economic case. Not very satisfactory for a Unionist I think. Not many are in love with the Union.

On the other hand, you also need to get a grip of reality. Remember that Nicola Sturgeon moved for a Section 30 order to trigger a second referendum in March 2017. Naturally, the Unionists would be banging on about independence in a June 8 2017 GE! What else did you expect? And the Unionists did run on stop Indyref2 and they won a massive majority of votes. Our winning a majority of Scottish MPs is a meaningless contest that proves nothing.

We elected not to run on Indyref 2, with Geoge Kerevan even taking out full page ads in the press insisting that Indyref 2 was irrelevant, because we knew we were on a hiding to nothing. The problem is that we had tried to trigger Indyref 2 only 2 months before!

People who say there are critical differences between the independence movements in Catalonia and Scotland are quite correct.
For example, in Catalonia everyone admits the loss of Catalonia’s tax revenues could cause a major economic collapse in the rest of Spain.
We’re told Scotland is “too poor” to support itself, has to be “subsidised” by England, and valuable resources like oil are “dwindling”.
So one key difference between Catalonia and Scotland is this: no one in Catalonia is stupid enough to believe obvious lies about economic strength that so many idiots in Scotland swallow without a second thought.

One thing about the Catalan situation – it clearly shows us the rules of the “game”.
1. Anything the nasty “separatists” do is simply deemed “illegal”.
2. Anything the heroic “unionists” do is simply deemed “legal” and “necessary to restore law and order”.
For example, under rule 1 holding a referendum without permission is “illegal” and, under rule 2, cracking open the skulls of defenceless old people and teenagers is “legal” and “necessary to restore law and order”.
The corrupt media convinces the public the unionists are the “good guys” and the “separatists” are the “bad guys”. They do this even when all evidence and logic suggests otherwise (for reference, see “Nineteen-Eighty Four” by George Orwell).
In addition, anyone who could make sure the game is played fairly, like the EU or the UN, will choose to turn a blind eye to foul play, even though this brazenly exposes them for the fake democrats they truly are. They know the public are so stupid they probably won’t even notice it.
Just how anyone would expect to “win” such a “game” is a complete and utter mystery to me.

Pretty scary right enough and all too plausible in the current climate. How and ever, Scotland’s independence CAN be achieved you know? When? Hard to say, but basically when we’re ready as a population.

Remember, a referendum in and of itself doesn’t equal independence. It’s just a ballot, an opportunity. Scotland can and WILL have self determination only when a majority want to have it. Scotland IS a nation, a country. It is a country that is party to an international treaty, the history and mechanics of which are well known by now, but it is not currently a nation state.

We had one opportunity recently, because it is our right as a national population. As other folk have rightly pointed out though, ‘democracy isn’t a one off event’. We’ll have another as and when we wish it, or necessity dictates. It’s kinda why unionist political parties go into overdrive trying to convince the electorate they don’t want one. We can have one anytime someone stands on a ticket of offering us one and we mandate their offer. It’s ALL about your permission. Your rights. Your freedom to choose.

Scotland’s population is only ever two ballots away from self determination at any given time and theoretically one, under certain circumstances. To rip off a fairly popular fantasy franchise… YOU HAVE THE POWERRRRRR… and you always did. No Westminster vote can or could stop the popular will of the electorate, only our own fear, uncertainty and doubt. Again, it’s kinda why certain folk go out of their way to foster same. The day you decide they’re talking a load of Jackie Baillie. The day YOU decide you’ve given them more than enough chances to prove their competence and worth. The day you decide enough is enough, is the day they no longer have any power over your decisions, your aspirations, or your needs.

The 1921 Conservative Committee are already discussing this as an option………would Not surprise me one bit……we have the power to declare UDI but have not used it……….love The Queen of Scots use it when Brexit backfires but pre leaving therefore we would remain as part of The EU. NO land mass that is a member of the EU can be thrown out of the EU unless it votes for it……..we never…..62% then and rising by the day!!